Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220824041933.822838-1-joefradley@google.com>
 <CABVgOSki72Yqb1DBSCgi-qk+FbNniL4GX+19MXwq=K9VEzAyoA@mail.gmail.com> <cb8b16a1-a7d6-1b04-c748-3f2d802b54e5@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <cb8b16a1-a7d6-1b04-c748-3f2d802b54e5@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 16:44:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF-60z1XC0GHNKAv79iomGBmVNSyo_MfZ=uYtxLGOxSiBFSweQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: Add new "test" taint to kernel-chktaint
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, kernel-team@android.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:57 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/22 22:41, David Gow wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:19 PM Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Commit c272612cb4a2 ("kunit: Taint the kernel when KUnit tests are run")
> >> added a new taint flag for when in-kernel tests run. This commit adds
> >> recognition of this new flag in kernel-chktaint.
> >>
>
> What happens without this change? It isn't clear what this change is
> fixing.

Without this change the correct reason will not be displayed if the kernel
is tainted because of a test.

>
> >> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Fradley <joefradley@google.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - based off of kselftest/kunit branch
> >> - Added David's Reviewed-by tag
> >>
> >
> > This still looks good to me.
> >
> > Unless anyone objects, I guess we'll take this through the KUnit
> > branch (which, after all, is where the taint was originally added).
> > I've added it to the list for 6.1, but it technically could be
> > considered a fix for 6.0 as well.
> >
>
> I can definitely take this for Linux 6.0 with additional information
> on the problems seen without this change.

Great, thank you very much.

>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>